MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (10 double-blind and 1 single-blind) with a total 762 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Trials were single- or two-centre trials conducted in Iran, New Zealand, Nepal, Turkey, the UK, Tunisia and the USA between 2004 and 2018. We judged studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. Three studies were at high risk for blinding and other biases.  Intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo Seven studies (24 to 77 participants) were included. Fewer people may require hospital admission with magnesium infusion compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7; 3 studies, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous magnesium may result in little to no difference in the requirement for non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reported cases of endotracheal intubation (2 studies, 107 participants) or serious adverse events (1 study, 77 participants) in either group. Included studies did not report intensive care unit (ICU) admission or deaths. Magnesium infusion may reduce the length of hospital stay by a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 days (95% CI 4.73 days to 0.66 days; 2 studies, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence) and improve dyspnoea score by a standardised mean difference of -1.40 (95% CI -1.83 to -0.96; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were uncertain about the effect of magnesium infusion on improving lung function or oxygen saturation. For all adverse events, the Peto OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.00; 102 participants); however, the event rate was too low to reach a robust conclusion.  Nebulised magnesium sulfate versus placebo Three studies (20 to 172 participants) were included. Magnesium inhalation may have little to no impact on hospital admission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or need for ventilatory support (NIV or mechanical ventilation) (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.20; very low-certainty evidence). It may result in fewer ICU admissions compared to placebo (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in dyspnoea (MD -14.37, 95% CI -26.00 to -2.74; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events reported in either group. There was one reported death in the placebo arm in one trial, but the number of participants was too small for a conclusion. There was limited evidence about the effect of magnesium inhalation on length of hospital stay, lung function outcomes or oxygen saturation. Included studies did not report adverse events.  Magnesium sulfate versus ipratropium bromide  A single study with 124 participants assessed nebulised magnesium sulfate plus intravenous magnesium infusion versus nebulised ipratropium plus intravenous normal saline. There was little to no difference between these groups in terms of hospital admission (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.37), endotracheal intubation (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.71) and length of hospital stay (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 2.42), all with very low-certainty evidence. There were no data available for non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and serious adverse events. Adverse events were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulfate may be associated with fewer hospital admissions, reduced length of hospital stay and improved dyspnoea scores compared to placebo. There is no evidence of a difference between magnesium infusion and placebo for NIV, lung function, oxygen saturation or adverse events. We found no evidence for ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, serious adverse events or mortality. For nebulised magnesium sulfate, we are unable to draw conclusions about its effects in COPD exacerbations for most of the outcomes. Studies reported possibly lower ICU admissions and a lesser degree of dyspnoea with magnesium inhalation compared to placebo; however, larger studies are required to yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes. Similarly, we could not identify any robust evidence for magnesium sulfate compared to ipratropium bromide. Future well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples are required, including subgroups according to severity of exacerbations and COPD phenotypes.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a single RCT (Minshawi 2016) funded by the United States Department of Defense. It was conducted at two sites in the USA: Indiana University School of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre. In the included study, 67 children with ASD aged between 5 and 11 years were randomised to receive either 10 weeks (10 doses) of (50 mg) D-cycloserine plus social skills training, or placebo plus social skills training. Randomisation was carried out 1:1 between D-cycloserine and placebo arms, and outcome measures were recorded at one-week post-treatment. The 'risk of bias' assessment for the included study was low for five domains and unclear for two domains. The study (67 participants) reported low certainty evidence of little to no difference between the two groups for all outcomes measured at one week post-treatment: social interaction impairment (mean difference (MD) 3.61 (assessed with the Social Responsiveness Scale), 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to 12.82); social communication impairment (MD -1.08 (measured using the inappropriate speech subscale of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)), 95% CI -2.34 to 0.18); restricted, repetitive, stereotyped patterns of behaviour (MD 0.12 (measured by the ABC stereotypy subscale), 95% CI -1.71 to 1.95); serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31); non-core symptoms of ASD (RR 0.97 (measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93); and tolerability of D-cycloserine (RR 0.32 (assessed by the number of dropouts), 95% CI 0.01 to 7.68).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude with certainty whether D-cycloserine is effective for individuals with ASD. This review included low certainty data from only one study with methodological issues and imprecision. The added value of this review compared to the included study is we assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Moreover, if we find new trials in future updates of this review, we could potentially pool the data, which may either strengthen or decrease the evidence for our findings.